Dragon Age discussion

[Volourn]

Nah. Internet is too fun to get angry over. It's not important enough. *Posting* 'angry' is not the same as *being* 'angry'.

[ramza]

Volourn will never grow up, he's like the Black Peter Pan, here to tell you that it might be great to always be a child, but everybody around is gonna hate it.

 

Excellent!

I am adding that in my sig!

[Guest Slinky]

"Am I the only one who thinks that complete change of the writing team at Bio could have a very positive effect on their games? They are okay writers, but they really could use some fresh ideas in my opinion."

 

No.

Could you clarify a little? You are so cosmic person that your "no's" could mean anything of the following:

 

A. Yes, I agree that Bio's writers could use some fresh ideas

B. No, I disagree, Bio's writers are doing just fine

C. Both A and B

D. Neither A nor B

E. LOLZ

F. Ralph Pootawn

G. Why there is a giant duck living in my closet?

[Gromnir]

I use way more strategy in DA than in BG2. In BG2, most encounters can be dealt with with "select entire party, click an enemy, wait until it's dead then repeat on the next one". Cast breach every now and then to remove some invulnerabilities and then that's it. IWD2 is better in this regard, but BG is a lot worse.

 

Overall, I think difficulty level in DA has a lot to do with it. Play it on nightmare without strategy and it will go bad, normal is way more forgiving from what I've heard.

 

 

there is considerable need for strategy in bg2. one reason many non-d&d fans complained about bg2 were it's complexity-- without a working knowledge of d&d bg2 battles could be very frustrating. fight mind flayers the same way you fight vampires or wizards or dragons or beholders? is very dependent on strategy, but for those of us who know d&d rules we hardly even consider the strategic nuances involved as such stuff often seem obvious. compare da and bg2 dragon... honestly. for all the improvement of da dragons in terms o' their ability to move, a da dragon battle were far more straightforward than a bg2 dragon battle... and da dragons, for all their size and toughness, were still vulnerable to freezing/immobilizing spells and force fields. our tactics for killing dragons in da were no genuine different than our tactics for killing those solo revenants, save that we needed to use more potions when fighting the big dragons.

 

iwd2 made more use of enemy ai and terrain than did bg2, but bg2, particularly for the d&d neophyte, required considerable use o' tactics. consider how much more difficult da were the first time you played compared to second. one reason for initial difficulty was simply 'cause you were a da neophyte who did not know which da spells and powers was genuine effective and you probable didn't know all the vulnerabilities of da monsters. second da play through is much easier... not because you know where and how enemies is gonna attack, but because you is familiar with da rules and mechanics... or because you used respec mod.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps keep in mind that we ain't genuine complaining about lack o' tactics in da. there were considerable tactical considerations, particularly for a game that introduces us to a new rules system. am thinking that da were okie dokie regarding level o' complexity, as were evidenced by fact that so many seasoned crpg fans complained of da difficulty on their first play... but admitted that second or third play were far easier.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Gromnir

[ramza]

Uh oh, he's getting angry...

 

 

It's funny that not so long ago, he was writing "long live NWN!".

 

Anyway, thanks for sharing your experiences, guys! I guess I might give it a try but I am going to wait for the gold edition (or something similar) so as to getter a more complete experience. To tell the truth, I don't have too many expectations. The game seems to have nice visuals and flashy graphics and voiced dialogs but all those things do not make it necessarily a good game. Actually, the problem with Bio game is that they have a lot of combat and that they are not very memorable in the end. For some reason, every part of BG2 was memorable. Every battle had a theme or backstory, Athkatla seemed so alive. I started replaying it a couple months ago and I felt exactly the same way I did when I was playing it 5 years ago. Sure, there was room for improvement but it's still one of the best rpgs out there. It will never get old to my eyes.

Edited February 13, 2010 by ramza

[Wrath of Dagon]

I thought the writing itself was pretty good quality, but the overall design was terrible and stale. Not sure it was just the writers responsible for the design, or it was a horse designed by a committee.

[Stephen Amber]

For BG2 mindflayers I recommend mordy's sword since they can't suck the brains out of it. For the dragons disintergrate, but that would destroy some loot as well. Those dragons were a frickin beatch. Nwn would later change flayer brain sucking to intelligence damage... like it's sucking brains a chunk at the time. Weak. I prefered the fearsome BG2 flayers.

[Hurlshort]

I've noticed that on these forums when a game like DA, ME, and even Fallout 3 comes out, it is well received. People play it and talk about how much they enjoy it. Then a few months pass and suddenly it becomes mediocre or worse. What is that all about?

[Gromnir]

I've noticed that on these forums when a game like DA, ME, and even Fallout 3 comes out, it is well received. People play it and talk about how much they enjoy it. Then a few months pass and suddenly it becomes mediocre or worse. What is that all about?

 

on this forum it is 'cause the codex folks is more tenacious than the casual fan. those peoples who liked da, and there were Many of us, has moved on to other games and other issues. those who felt Violated by da and bioware will not let go so easily, so they dominate continued debate. is just our theory.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Volourn]

"A. Yes, I agree that Bio's writers could use some fresh ideas

B. No, I disagree, Bio's writers are doing just fine

C. Both A and B

D. Neither A nor B

E. LOLZ

F. Ralph Pootawn

G. Why there is a giant duck living in my closet?"

 

While there is overlap in the writing style of all the BIO games, the quality has always been pretty good. I also don't believe that even if you think the BIO writing sucks or is 'repetive' that changing the writers will automatically chnage that because the company will be the same, and the style remain the same. The qulaity itself migth improve a little or might get worse by a bit; but the style will be the same.

 

There are certain things that you will always see in a BIO game no matter who is writing it. Why? because of the overall BIO design philosophy. And, until the docs are out of the picture and/or a BIO game suffers huge and utterly fails finanically and popularity wise; they have no motivation to change that.

 

 

BG2 Flayers: BG2 flayers were fun to fight espciailly if you go in unprepared but let's be honest theres' only one real straetgy for dealing them. They (andn other enemies) often had one sure fire way to get the win - immunity item or spell.

 

This is why Ibashed DA when it comes to people bragging about 100% MR. Having a character completely immune to something is just poor design unless its extremely rare and not gaming breaking. It's the same with BG2 vamps. They coudl deadly but if youa re immune to their level drain they were a completely a joke and you coudl wade into battle by multi clicking your entire party INCLUDING the mage and just gang rape them while you do nothing but watch.

 

 

"It's funny that not so long ago, he was writing "long live NWN!"."

 

You are making the ASSumption that NWN isns't still my favorite BIO game. HINT: It still is.

 

Also, DA is ahrd pressed to be BIo's best game of then last few months. If it wans't for ME2's dumbed down combat and character system, it would eaisly be the better game because in almost every other way ME2 is the equal of if not better than DA.

 

 

"da dragons, for all their size and toughness, were still vulnerable to freezing/immobilizing spells and force fields."

 

So were BG2 dragons. In fact, you could kill a BG2 dragon with one spell... yet people claim DA mages are 'overpowered'. L0LZ Still, overall, I think I'd give the oevrall edge to BG2 dragons not coutning people who used cheese to beat them. *cough* cloudkill *cough*

[Starwars]

There's no question that more stuff is optional in BG2, but they are games of different design while being similar in some areas. To put it in perspective

 

Origin + grindy forest + the battle (linear intro)

 

Let's not forget that, while the Origins are linear in themselves, there are 6 of them to choose from. These bring small changes to the game, and fairly big changes in some cases.

 

Brescilian forest, or/and (composed of: elvish camp the friendly area, then grind: forest 1, forest 2, ruins 1, ruins 2) (all must be travelled)

 

The game also provides 3 different ways to solve the hubs overarching quest, reflected in the games ending.

 

Circle of the Magi or/and (composed of: templar area then grind: floor 1, floor 2, floor 3, fade, final floor) (all must be travelled)

 

2 major ways to solve this hub I believe, one of which will result in you not getting a party member as well as eliminating a choice for another major quest line. Ending changes depending on your choices.

 

Haven Village/Temple (composed of: village - grind: temple, more temple, caverns, dragon, non combat area) (all must be travelled)

 

One small gameplay choice that will possibly affect the ending. Two major ways to handle this (both which are reflected in the ending), one of which will lose you several companions. If choosing the other option, another choice is presented which will further change the ending.

 

Let's not forget the Redcliffe questline (which I assume you've played since you've played Haven) which also have different solutions, both in the main overarching quest and in the smaller quests as well. You can also choose not to help the actual village which will also change things.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Starwars

[Wrath of Dagon]

Some of us just play slow.

[Volourn]

"Let's not forget that, while the Origins are linear in themselves, there are 6 of them to choose from. These bring small changes to the game, and fairly big changes in some cases.

"

 

Not to mention, some choices made in the origin could effect you later on in some way plus you have different ways of approaching the origin as well. An example is as a male dwarf noble you can get a gal pregenant and later on you mette her and she curses at you for damning your child to ever be thrown in the trash.

[Gromnir]

"da dragons, for all their size and toughness, were still vulnerable to freezing/immobilizing spells and force fields."

 

So were BG2 dragons. In fact, you could kill a BG2 dragon with one spell... yet people claim DA mages are 'overpowered'. L0LZ Still, overall, I think I'd give the oevrall edge to BG2 dragons not coutning people who used cheese to beat them. *cough* cloudkill *cough*

 

 

could kill and is likely to kill is very different. to get bg2 dragon mr down far enough that a disintegrate gonna even function is requiring more than a couple spells... and chances are that the critter makes save, so you gotta doom it to death, or use other saving throw reducing spells... or replay battle 5 times til it works by chance... and even then your 1007 is gone. and 'course the dragon is standing still during all this.

 

'course it is true that d&d has far too many insta-kill options. da developers were smart enough to rid them selves o' insta kill nonsense... save for 'gainst fodder. arrows o' slaying does sometimes insta-kill... and a frozen enemy that is then hit with a critical may be killed outright, but bosses and elite enemies is made immune to such stuff... which is kinda annoying... feels a bit like a developer cheat.

 

"Not to mention, some choices made in the origin could effect you later on in some way plus you have different ways of approaching the origin as well. An example is as a male dwarf noble you can get a gal pregenant and later on you mette her and she curses at you for damning your child to ever be thrown in the trash. "

 

none of which has genuine impact on game and quest resolutions... adds flavor, but changes nothing essential.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited February 13, 2010 by Gromnir

[Volourn]

"none of which has genuine impact on game and quest resolutions... adds flavor, but changes nothing essential."

 

Boo hoo hoo. Way more than BG2 that's for darn sure.

[Slowtrain]

I've noticed that on these forums when a game like DA, ME, and even Fallout 3 comes out, it is well received. People play it and talk about how much they enjoy it. Then a few months pass and suddenly it becomes mediocre or worse. What is that all about?

 

 

The weaknesses and failures of a game's design tend to become more obvious as one develops more of an understanding of how the game plays. Which tends to come through repeated playthroughs.

 

That being said, my appreciation for Fallout 3 generally increased as I played it more and more, though that might be because my expectation was so low to begin with combined with the fact the entire opening character creation/tutorial part was so horrible.

[RPGmasterBoo]

Boo, you seem like a feller who can see reason. There is no progress to be made by debating Volourn. In fact it is quite likely that he is just a bot. That would explain his inability after 6 years on this forum to use quotes or spoiler tags.

 

*sigh* Yeah, you're right.

 

@Starwars: You talk about choices in those areas and how they affect the game. I was talking about the design of the areas themselves and what appeared to be flaws in the way they were made. Those are two different things. While its obvious that DA has a lot of choices that have substantial impact on the game world, you might have noticed (I mentioned several times) that choices of this sort are not important to me in RPG's if the plot doesn't hook me in.

 

In RPG's things that matter to me are, in order of priority:

 

1. story, characters and atmoshpere

2. gameplay (combat, quests etc)

3. choices

 

Obviously if choices are the reason you play RPG's - DA is superior to BGII. The BG series had only one real choice an that was at the end of ToB. However that was the point of the entire plot and the only choice I genuinely cared about. You might ask why since it only affects the ending cinematic and certain epilogues, but since the whole plot is built around it (a plot I liked) it simply - mattered.

 

on this forum it is 'cause the codex folks is more tenacious than the casual fan. those peoples who liked da, and there were Many of us, has moved on to other games and other issues. those who felt Violated by da and bioware will not let go so easily, so they dominate continued debate. is just our theory.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Note: I'm playing it just now and writing my thoughts as I progress through the game. Volo keeps forcing me to go into detail I usually wouldn't but my opinion of the game is postive. If I were to review it, it would get a good grade, because it is good for the general populace. My complaints stem from having played everything else (and thus being affected by flaws others dont care about) and being tired of certain unnecessary Bioware cliches that they keep on pushing for no reason.

Edited February 13, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[Volourn]

"because it is good for the general populace"

 

Why should that matter? It's your review. Give your opinion on it not based on what others thought but what you think.

[Asol]

The class design is just cumbersome and awkward. If you streamline potential nuker, CC, support, and healer roles into builds of one class(one build often having it all anyway), then why can't light and heavy melee, archery and sneakery be streamlined into a builds of one class?

 

I enjoyed DAO but would still perfer some form of an IWD follow up to another DA, there were a couple design issues to give me pause at coming back such as an extra superfluous hallway or two between any two points and the general injection of MMO grindyness.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Asol

[Gromnir]

"none of which has genuine impact on game and quest resolutions... adds flavor, but changes nothing essential."

 

Boo hoo hoo. Way more than BG2 that's for darn sure.

 

boo hoo? eh? is an observation o' fact that none o' the origin flavor actual impacts the critical path in any significant way. is nice to have such stuff pop up in game, but as far as Meaningful Choices is concerned, da origins didn't add to the game. does da offer more of the ultimately pointless flavor changes than bg2? yeah, a couple gnome-centric options for those dealing with jan jansen does not provide adequate reason for playing as a gnome... is no genuine re-playability. is possible that some peoples feels as if the da flavor options is enough to create genuine re-playability, but we don't see it 'cause the origin material doe not result in meaningful changes to critical path. heck, da origins don't even much impact tangential side-quests... and that were genuine surprising. Gromnir really expected that some choices made in origins might open up some origin-specific side-quest material later in game. one small side-quest later in game to makes choices in origins more meaningful? why not? bio missed a simple method to add re-playability and make origins more significant without having to deal with critical path complications.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps our insta-kill option for dragons were typical finger of death rather than disintegrate. disintegrate is level 6 as 'posed to level 7, so am supposing that is reason why some folks relied on it. typically we took down the pre-underdark dragons without the insta-kills... save for an infrequent chromatic orb death.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Gromnir

[Wrath of Dagon]

DAO has some choices, but they don't really affect how the quests play out. No matter what, most of the quest is just a grind, and then you make a choice at the end, the new Bio paradigm. Plus there's nothing particularly great about the choices you make, they didn't really feel very satisfying, it's pretty much be a goody two shoes or a jerk once again.

[Gromnir]

da is too grindy compared to bg2.

am not seeing that. how many places in bg2 had us face yet another room o' githyanki or drow or trolls that were largely the same as the previous room filled with githyanki, drow or trolls? heck, the druid grove were one o' those backwards s-shaped maps filled with largely repetitive and meaningless grindy combats... throw in the troll mound and raksahsa to break up the monotony a bit? didn't work. grindy... in spades.

am suspecting that bg2 felt less grindy simply 'cause there were more variation of foes. understandable, but we recall seeing critters from bg1, totsc, and iwd in bg2 (am not recalling any HoW specific models showing up in bg2)... and Gromnir were disappointed that bio didn't utilize the iwd elemental models as we thought the black isle versions were far better looking. *shrug* point is that we thinks it is a bit unfair to expect the kinda diversity o' foes bg2 offered when da is the initial game of a series as opposed to bg2, a game that had several precursors making use of same rules and engine.

 

da is too linear.

bg2 were, indeed, far less linear. biowarians has admitted that we is unlikely to ever see another bg2 in terms o' size and scope. 3d v. 2d makes difference? don't know. regardless, we were informed from day 1 o' da development not to expect bg2 scope. there was a good amount o' pure optional side quests, including random encounters (done far better in da than bg2), chanter's board, blackstone irregulars, interested parties and mages collective quests... not to mention the stuff like unbound and the enigmatic friends o' red jenny. even so, there is no question that bg2 had superior scope. more optional side-quests, the stronghold quests, and a sprawling city like athkatla with dozens o' intriguing side-quests to chose from and complete as desired.

 

bg2 characters are better developed.

in general, the da joinable npcs had far more to say than did bg2 npcs and we thinks the da jnpcs were better developed than the bg2 group. is some da jnpcs we were not impressed with... including the dog and oghren, but for the most part we believes that the da companions were more complete and real than bg2 companions. after you finish the bg2 companion quests, you has pretty much exhausted jnpc development... 'save for romances and the very end of game. da jnpcs had something to add throughout the game, regardless of when you completed their quest. party banter were far better in da than bg2. in fact, we found our self making pointless journeys between areas simply to trigger dialogues 'tween sten and morrigan or wynne and shale. cannot speak to romances in bg2 v. da. we loathe crpg romance... trite and banal. in any event, in a game that is story-driven and character centric, the da party characters were superior.

however, not all character development in da were good. some da characters produced wtf moments in which they appeared to act contrary to developed character... were disturbing. the aforementioned ohgren were 'posed to be comic relief, but he were not amusing on any level we could see. also, there were no developed villain, save for lohgain. am not certain why bio has moved towards the tolkienesque villain construct, but in a crpg where you almost necessarily must come face-to-face with the UBG (Ultimate Bad Guy) it simply doesn't work to be faceless and undeveloped.

 

the bg2 story is better than the da story.

*shrug*

tough call. lack o' a genuine UBG hinders da greatly. the archdeamon... sucks. the landsmeet... sucks. everything after the landsmeet and before the epilogue... sucks. the d

[Spider]

consider how much more difficult da were the first time you played compared to second. one reason for initial difficulty was simply 'cause you were a da neophyte who did not know which da spells and powers was genuine effective and you probable didn't know all the vulnerabilities of da monsters. second da play through is much easier... not because you know where and how enemies is gonna attack, but because you is familiar with da rules and mechanics... or because you used respec mod.

 

But the same is true for BG2. The second playthrough is MUCH easier than the first. I don't think this indicates a lack of tactics though, quite the opposite. It's easier because you already know the plan.

 

There were certainly fights in BG2 that were tough. The circle, kangaxx, and some more. And it certainly had a more punishing death system, adding to the difficulty. If I had to reload everytime a character went down, there are fights in DA I'm not sure I'd get through.

 

I just don't recall any fights in BG2 that frustrated me as much as the spider queen in DA. But it's been almost ten years so my memory could be failing me. I know I couldn't for the life of me beat Kangaxx, but that's because I didn't know that you needed +4 weapons and I had no clue how to avoid imprisonment. I don't think I'd say the +4 weapon is a tactical problem though, it's just obfuscated information. Avoiding imprisonment though kinda qualifies. But I still felt like I needed to make more tactical decisions more frequently in DA compared to BG2. Tactical as in positioning, what enemies to take out first, etc. Not figuring out what silver bullets beats a specific kind of enemy.

 

BG2 is certainly more complex, but complex != tactical in my book.

 

That is not to say BG2 isn't tactical. Compare it to say Torment and it's miles beyond. Compare it to IWD2 and it falls behind a bit.

 

Edit: By the way, I agree with gromnis's post above 100%. Well, 99%. I don't think Irenicus is Bioware's best villain (I have a hard time with that character for some reason) but everything else is spot on.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Spider

[Gromnir]

But I still felt like I needed to make more tactical decisions more frequently in DA compared to BG2. Tactical as in positioning, what enemies to take out first, etc. Not figuring out what silver bullets beats a specific kind of enemy.

 

dunno. am recalling fights against slaver lords in the temple district, and fights 'gainst dragons and fights 'gainst mages n' such. is using correct spells to deal with enemy games a tactical consideration? if not, why not? positioning in bg2 were as important if not more important than da... grease spell and fireball/cloudkill to set up kill zone any different than using earthquake and blizzard in da?

 

as we noted already, our tactics for dealing with da dragons were very much identical to taking out da revenants... or pretty much any other boss character. we probable had a single tactic for taking out those scatter shot archers in the dwarf tunnels... but this weren't due to any cleverness or learning on our part save that after a playing through entire game we began to understand which spells were actual effective. diversity of our tactics were probable greater in bg2 than da simply ;cause we had more spells available to us, and there were a far greater variety o' foes.

 

am recalling the message boards following release of bg2. were typical spread o' people complaining that bg2 were too hard or too easy. those who complained that bg2 were too hard were often those folks unfamiliar with d&d. da were different. far more people complaining it were too hard. you not think lack o' knowledge o' da rules/mechanics had something to do with that?

 

dunno. am thinking that much o' the seeming need for tactics in da were nothing more than initial unfamiliarity with da mechanics.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[RPGmasterBoo]

On characters (as in joinable NPCs):

 

I don't recall anyone saying that BGII characters were better developed. Of course they weren't, they were archetypes with a few comic relief characters. They had the benefit of not taking themselves too seriously (something Bioware's subsequent characters are quilty as hell of), of being around for a very long time - some of them through all three titles (which endeared them to the player) and having a clear identity (benefit of the portraits and writing). They did not grow, but they didn't need to, many of them were fun to have around just the way they were. Except Anomen.

Jan and Minsc in particular are characters everyone remembers, which says a lot about them.

 

DA's characters have well thought out storylines and reactions. Apart from Lelianna who's contradicted on so many levels its not worth discussing. Yet even though they are developed, this is done along well treaded paths in ways seen a hundred times before.

Why, when you have so many resources and writers working on these characters do you have to end up with such cliche's? Why make them so boring? For all the work put into them none of them hold any surprises or any particular quirks you're likely to remember once the game's through.

 

Characters in BGII werent good because they were deep, they were good because they were fun to have around and adventure with. And because there were enough of them for anyone to assemble a party he/she liked. Unless you're doing a Planescape Torment, what you need is the Seven Samurai gang, not drama queens.

 

On grind:

It wasnt argued that DA is much grindier than BGII. I said that the main quest forced more grind upon players than BGII's did because of the linear structure of DA's hubs. You simply have to blast your way through all the look alike cultists, werewolves, demons etc. There are grindy areas in BGII, but for the most part they're optional.

 

As for whether DA is the best Bioware game since BGII:

I'm not sure about that. It has stuff done well and stuff done badly. It is superior in many ways to other Bio games, but other titles have their advantages. Jade Empire probably has better writing, ME2 better pacing, KOTOR a better thought out hub structure etc. etc.

I say that such as it is, it falls under the same level of quality as everything else Bioware has done post BGII. I'm enjoying it more than others, but that's because I like this gameplay style more than the action RPG stuff and that doesn't make it automatically better.

Edited February 13, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo